This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: PATCH: Compress debug sections for Linux/x86 by default
- From: <Paul_Koning at Dell dot com>
- To: <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, <thomas at codesourcery dot com>, <binutils at sourceware dot org>, <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:08:27 +0000
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Compress debug sections for Linux/x86 by default
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141214144317 dot GA25790 at gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1412151845470 dot 4719 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAMe9rOpz7LMckAmJ6r5gL9=Jaz3F0Hb480UrYSO5v9KoSPBDLg at mail dot gmail dot com> <87tx012qlu dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net> <CAMe9rOprYoRMzOA9roJ_OiifSLX+tir+8F6QwhntBwRy+-Hk2w at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1501081828560 dot 32188 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
> On Jan 8, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Joseph Myers <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Thomas Schwinge <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:04:01 -0800, "H.J. Lu" <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Joseph Myers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2014, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>> I checked in this patch to compress debug sections for Linux/x86 by
>>>>> I don't think it makes sense for something like this to be
>>>>> architecture-dependent. If desired it should be done for GNU/Linux on all
>>>>> architectures (and probably for GNU/Hurd, GNU/kFreeBSD etc. - all systems
>>>>> with GNU userspace), if not for all ELF targets.
>>>> Sure, someone can contribute a patch.
>>> I don't like this attitude very much. We should strive to be a bit more
>>> cooperative within our own community, at least. As Joseph says, there is
>>> no reason to restrict this change -- which, as Joel has pointed out, has
>>> not been discussed/reviewed/approved before -- to x86 GNU/Linux only.
>> It is next to impossible to get agreements for all targets.
>> It is better to start from somewhere. Each target maintainer
>> should make his/her own decision.
> My point is that agreement for all targets is not what we want anyway.
> We should make a decision for the GNU system (or for ELF targets in
> general) and then apply that to all targets that are part of the GNU
> system (i.e. all with GNU userspace) (or for ELF targets in general). If
> an OS maintainer thinks it's bad for their OS, don't enable it there, but
> enabling / disabling on a per-architecture (as opposed to per-OS) basis
> doesn't make sense without a compelling justification. And we don't have
> many OS maintainers.
At the very most, if you are really concerned about lack of agreement, having the feature in Linux generally may be a valid first step. But only Linux and then just on ONE target platform doesnât make any sense. There is nothing here that is target specific as far as I can tell, so a limitation to x86 is something I do not understand at all.